APHC010462682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Bench Sr.No:-

AT AMARAVATI [3446]

WRIT APPEAL NO: 964 of 2025 Sri Karthikeya Security Services ...Appellant Vs.

Mc Lean India Limited and others ...Respondents **********

Advocate for Appellant: Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing vice Mr. Kalepu Yashwanth Advocates for Respondents: Mr. D. Srinivas, Ld. Advocate General, Mr.

B. Adinarayana Rao appearing vice Mr.

Javvaji Sarath Chandra, Mrs. S. Pranathi, Ld. Special GP, GP for Medical Health FW CORAM : T HE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO Reserved on: 12^th September, 2025.

Pronounced on: 18^th December, 2025.

Uploaded on: 18^th December, 2025.

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 18.08.2025, passed in Writ Petition No.21232 of 2025.

2. The petitioner/respondent No.1 had challenged the decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee, which had declared the petitioner as disqualified in the tendering process, upon evaluation of the technical bid.

3. The learned Single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, while allowing the writ petition, directed the official respondents to process the bid of the petitioner, in terms of the findings rendered by the Court.

With a view to understand the background, in the light of which the present controversy has arisen, it is appropriate to refer to some material facts in brief:

4. Bids were invited from eligible entities for procuring sanitation related services by the Andhra Pradesh Medical Services and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APMSIDC) on behalf of the Director of Secondary Health, Andhra Pradesh.

The bid process involved a two-bid system i.e. a technical bid and the financial bid.

5. Clause 6.1 prescribed the Eligibility Criteria, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:

Clause 6.3(a) prescribed the conditions for evaluation of the technical bids based upon the criteria mentioned in the bid document and the documents furnished by the bidder in their technical bid.

Clause 6.3(b) and (c) envisaged thus:

“b) The bids will be initially examined to determine whether they are complete, whether required sureties have been furnished, whether the documents have been properly authenticated, and whether the bids are generally in order and without any material deviation, reservation or omission. A material deviation, reservation or omission is one that(i) if accepted would affect in any substantial way, the scope, quality or performance of the services specified in the contract (or) (ii) limit in any substantial way, inconsistent with the bidding document, the Purchaser's rights or the bidder's obligation under the contract (or) (ii) if rectified, would unfairly affect the competitive position of the other bidders presenting substantially responsive bid.

c) If a bid is not substantially responsive to the requirements of the bidding document it shall be rejected by the purchaser and shall not subsequently be made responsive by the bidder by correction of the material deviation, reservation or omission.”

Clause 6.14.3 envisaged that the bidders must upload the technical proposal in the proposed formats prescribed in the Annexures and further that failure to comply with the requirement would make the proposal liable to be rejected.

Clause 6.15 envisaged seeking clarification from bidders as under:

“6.15 Clarifications from bidder:

To facilitate evaluation of Proposals, the TIA may, at its sole discretion, seek clarifications from any Bidder regarding its Proposal. Such clarification(s) shall be provided within the time specified by the TIA for this purpose. Any request for clarification(s) and all clarification(s) in response thereto shall be in writing.

If a Bidder does not provide clarifications sought under Sub-

Clause mentioned above within the specified time, its Proposal shall be liable to be rejected. In case the Proposal is not rejected, the TIA may proceed to evaluate the